Rupert Murdoch’s has had his effort to change his family’s trust to give one of his sons control of his media empire and ensure Fox News maintains its conservative editorial slant rejected.
In a decision filed on Saturday, a probate commissioner in Nevada concluded that Murdoch, 93, and his son, Lachlan Murdoch, had acted in “bad faith” in their endeavor to amend the irrevocable trust, The New York Times reported on Monday.
The trust divides control of the company equally among four of Rupert Murdoch’s children — Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James — after he dies. Lachlan Murdoch has been the head of Fox News and News Corp since late last year, when his father stepped down.
The elder Murdoch has argued that to preserve his businesses’ commercial value for all his heirs, the trust must be changed to allow Lachlan Murdoch to maintain Fox News' conservative bent. James and Elisabeth Murdoch are both known to have less-conservative political views than their father or brother, potentially complicating efforts to ensure that Fox News remains conservative.
In his 96-page opinion, Nevada Probate Commissioner Edmund J. Gorman Jr. of the Second Judicial District Court characterized the plan to change the trust as a “carefully crafted charade” to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” inside the empire “regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries” of the family trust.
Adam Streisand, a lawyer for Rupert Murdoch, told the newspaper that his client and his client's son were disappointed with the ruling and intended to appeal.
A spokesperson for Prudence, Elisabeth and James Murdoch said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press that they welcome the ruling and hope that their family can “move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”
Gorman in his conclusion said: “The effort was an attempt to stack the deck in Lachlan Murdoch’s favor after Rupert Murdoch’s passing so that his succession would be immutable. The play might have worked; but an evidentiary hearing, like a showdown in a game of poker, is where gamesmanship collides with the facts and at its conclusion, all the bluffs are called and the cards lie face up.”
He added: “The court, after considering the facts of this case in the light of the law, sees the cards for what they are and concludes this raw deal will not, over the signature of this probate commissioner, prevail.”
